Continuing the discussion on the problem of evil.

[Aupmanyav]

I said the Biblical creation stories are allegorical. They're myths that are meant to get certain teachings across. You're bonkers if you take it as a literal account.

Only the creation stories? Ours are all myths in my opinion.

I don't know a lot about the apple and the snake history, but personally I find it a great idea of good and evil.

I know you love snakes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Only the creation stories? Ours are all myths in my opinion.

I know what your opinion is.

 

[Thana]

Yes, crazy literalist Young Earth Creationists. I don't care about their feelings. They have issues, same as those who still believe the Earth is flat or that the Earth is hollow with its own sun within it. Sometimes people become so far removed from reality that we shouldn't hesitate to point that out to them.

You can take most of Genesis literally without having to be a YEC.

And in my experience most Christians don't take Genesis as wholly figurative.

 

[Koldo]

In 'Advaita' (non-dual) Hinduism, the problem of evil does not exist, it is short-circuited; since what is good and what is evil is part of one whole (Brahma satyam - Brahman is the truth) - and what is perceived is an illusion (jagan-mithya, the perceived world is an illusion). The eater and the eaten is the same, the killer and the killed is the same, the oppressor and the oppressed are the same; so hurting another is hurting yourself. Good and evil exist because of absence of 'jnana', not knowing. If one knew better, one would not indulge in evil. Atoms and molecules again, energy, Brahman, the ultimate substrate, which constitutes everything.

Buddhism short-circuited the problem in its own way. It did not dwell upon why good and evil exist, they exist because of absence of 'jhana', not knowing. If one knew better, one would not indulge in evil. Buddhism debated on how it may affect one and what is the best course of action for one's peace of mind and happiness and that of others.

I have a different take on it. Advaita solves the problem by not positing an omnibenevolent god.

 

[Aupmanyav]

'Advaita' may or may not have a God (My Brahman is not a God, but I am in a minority), but it does not interfere in human affairs. And since it does not interfere, it is neither benovalent nor malevolent. 'Neti, neti' (not this, not that), undefinable.

 

[psychoslice]

I said the Biblical creation stories are allegorical. They're myths that are meant to get certain teachings across. You're bonkers if you take it as a literal account.

Yes I agree, it was never meant to be taking literally.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In 'Advaita' (non-dual) Hinduism, the problem of evil does not exist, it is short-circuited; since what is good and what is evil is part of one whole (Brahma satyam - Brahman is the truth) - and what is perceived is an illusion (jagan-mithya, the perceived world is an illusion).

Well then the motivations for those who find the problem of evil to be a problem are far greater hear, as you propose that logic is bereft of value, meaning is meaningless, and essentially that the philosophical tradition behind the problem of evil is negated because philosophy, logic, reason, rationality, etc., can be defeated by presenting paradoxes as truth (whilst making truth impossible to be consistent with logic).

The eater and the eaten is the same, the killer and the killed is the same, the oppressor and the oppressed are the same

The problem of evil consists of a (proposed) recognition of a logical problem in a particular worldview or worldviews (most popularly, Christian, but in certain forms it dates to the Greeks). You state that this problem doesn't exist because you can espouse nonsensical platitudes. I am sure that this is meaningful to many. How does it show anything about the problem of evil, when it can't demonstrate anything logically as it has accepted contradictions as true?

Buddhism short-circuited the problem in its own way.

It didn't. Buddhism is largely a modern construction. But regardless, both the modern construction and the various worldviews that stretch back many centuries haven't "short-circuited" anything. It turns out that saying "there is no problem" doesn't make it so. Neither do transliterations

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Fall concept in Christianity explains those things, too. I actually think the Fall was a dimensional event and it created an imperfect parallel universe that we're currently living in.

From fundy to funny ...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

From fundy to funny ...

Buzz off, unless you have something of substance to say.

 

[Kirran]

Well, I think evil is subjective. I don't believe in an objective good and evil. People's ideas about what is good and bad vary. I, for example, think two men/women in love getting together is good, others would see this as the work of Satan, therefore evil. There's no correct/incorrect in morality's subjective judgments (although of course once those subjective judgments have been made, a great deal of elaboration is objective).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Buzz off, unless you have something of substance to say.

Substantive as in "the Fall was a dimensional event and it created an imperfect parallel universe that we're currently living in"?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Substantive as in "the Fall was a dimensional event and it created an imperfect parallel universe that we're currently living in"?

Ignore it is, then.

 

[Kirran]

Ignore it is, then.

I am in fact curious as to what it is that leads you to hold this view. Does Genesis read in this way to you in an obvious manner, or is it upon reflection, or upon reading others' explanations, that you come to this view? It isn't one I've heard before, so I don't know anything about it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well then the motivations for those who find the problem of evil to be a problem are far greater hear, as you propose that logic is bereft of value, meaning is meaningless, and essentially that the philosophical tradition behind the problem of evil is negated because philosophy, logic, reason, rationality, etc., can be defeated by presenting paradoxes as truth (whilst making truth impossible to be consistent with logic).

It didn't. Buddhism is largely a modern construction. But regardless, both the modern construction and the various worldviews that stretch back many centuries haven't "short-circuited" anything. It turns out that saying "there is no problem" doesn't make it so. Neither do transliterations

Those who find the problem of evil to be a problem are far greater are bit uninitiated in 'advaita'. Advait accepts reality at two levels. At the pragmatic level, the problem of evil sure is there, and society has the freedom to deal with it in the way they want. They can put the evil people in jail or execute tham or send them to a correction center, whatever they like. But at the absolute level, where only energy and atoms exist, there is no problem of evil. If you find this explanation unsuitable, then find the answer elsewhere.

Buddhism is a very practical philosophy. Remember the story where Buddha asks if a person hit by an arrow will ask whether it has a steel shaft or a wooden shaft or whether the arrow head was triangular or like a crescent. Buddha opined that the person would like to be treated immediately, get relief from pain, would like to have the blood flow stopped. Buddha did not waste time in deliberations, but went straight to show how the person can minimise pain for himself and for others. Basically, I think you need to know more about 'dharmic' religions. They have very different approaches than the Abrahamic religions..

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Buddhism is a very practical philosophy.

You've presented it as a violation of basic logic. I find logic fairly practical.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think what Buddha said was very logical.

 

[Kirran]

I'd like to point out to those unfamiliar, Aup's belief that atoms and energy exist at the absolute level is a minority one within the tradition Not that that is an issue of course, Aup, just so people are clear.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Problem of Evil is fundamentally The Problem of Premise. I remain a big fan of the Book of Job.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am in fact curious as to what it is that leads you to hold this view. Does Genesis read in this way to you in an obvious manner, or is it upon reflection, or upon reading others' explanations, that you come to this view? It isn't one I've heard before, so I don't know anything about it.

It's my personal interpretation, from what I know about multiverse theories, alternate dimensions, etc. It's how I personally make sense of it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think what Buddha said was very logical.

I didn't comment on what the Buddha said or what Buddhist texts do. I commented on what you presented it as.